Stillers Fans at DEFCON 1- Big Ben Accused Again (Update- No Charges Filed)

Was he ever arrested?

 

And, once again, if you believe she -- or he -- was intoxicated, then it wasn't consensual.

 

You mean mutually consensual drunk sex, right?

Because otherwise you'd be saying that all men have to do is find somebody intoxicated, intoxicate themselves, and they're free to do whatever.

Waylon, I think you're tying too much of your reasoning to alcohol and not enough to "consent."

 

I'm interested to know what you find, but from what I gather, it's a woman. The rape statue is written specifically as "carnal knowledge of a woman without consent."

Now, I may be missing an updated version that broadens the definition to "person." But this is Georgia we're talking about here. Not exactly the most progressive state in terms of gender equity. And I know a lot of states take a similar view. The idea of a drunken man being raped by a sober woman is not something I think a lot of state politicians can wrap their head around.

 

Yes, because a girl getting dragged to a dude who already has his member flapping in the breeze is the exact situation that leads to consensual sex.

Oh, but he couldn't consent, because he was drunk.

His member was out. He was just waiting for a victim . . errrr . . . willing partner.

I was 16 when Magic made the announcement that he had "attained" the HIV virus. And apparently more intelligent and informed at that age than you are now.

So hold the "How old were YOU?!?!?!?!?!!!!!!" lines.

 

I don't have any idea. I'm just saying that I think the Magic comparison was IF it was consensual. Otherwise, obviously the two offenses are not equal.

Also, the Georgia sexual battery statute seems to indicate that a woman can sexually batter a man, as well as the other way around. It says "he," but that's after it says "a person," and I would think they just used "he" in the old gender neutral manner. Also, their rape statute specifically indicates "male" and "female" vaginal rape, so one reason for the existence of sexual battery would seem to be - besides having a statute covering forcible oral sex - covering female-on-male unconsented sex.

16-6-22.1. Sexual battery.
(a) For the purposes of this Code section, the term "intimate parts"
means the primary genital area, anus, groin, inner thighs, or buttocks
of a male or female and the breasts of a female.
(b) A person commits the offense of sexual battery when he
intentionally makes physical contact with the intimate parts of the body
of another person without the consent of that person.
(c) A person convicted of the offense of sexual battery shall be
punished as for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature.

 

And you are trying to hard to paint the FEMALE as the victim when, in fact, there is a helluva lot of evidence that this wasn't much more than day-after-drunken-stupor regret by a chick who, oh yeah, walked around a club with her intentions written on her shirt.

 

Not what you said.

The word "IF" is never in evidence here. You have clearly advanced the idea that Roethlisberger's incident was consensual.

 

What is considered "consent" in regard to Roethlisberger anyway? Isn't popping an erection -- whisky dick or not -- consent enough?

 

Yes, consensual, absolutely. Every argument in this thread within a thread is in reference to the hypothetical situation where two drunk people mutually consent to sex, in response to the post that it could be "rape by intoxication," which I took to refer to a situation in which a man takes advantage of a drunk woman who "consents," but really can't consent because she's not of the right frame of mind to consent.

That's a mouthful.

 

It wasn't the day after, zag. It was like 10 minutes after, when they flagged down the first cop they saw.

 

"Given" = "If"